TBO and beyond - Who is on your side?

A cirrus engine actually made it to TBO much less past? Amazing.

The article is overblowing (IMO) the NTSB's mention of "past TBO."

The NTSB (if the article is accurate which is always a bold assumption) said contributing factors were:

1. The inadequate servicing and maintenance of the engine

2. disregard of the manufacturer's recommended engine overhaul schedule

3. disregard of the manufacturer's service bulletins

4. flying the aircraft with only 5 quarts of oil on board, instead of 6 quarts as recommended by the manufacturer

Much more than just flying past TBO.

The article ends with "Fortunately, no one was hurt. But an owner should think twice about running past TBO, regardless of whether an FAA-certified mechanic has pronounced the engine airworthy."

Why?

...:dunno:

It's my understanding that NTSB reports can't be used in a court of law so the mention of "past TBO" might help, not hurt, in that regard?

...
 
Last edited:
Oh look an article by a trial lawyer...can't imagine any bias there.
 
I'm with Ed. I've seen many engines exceed TBO by a good margin if they're properly maintained. TBO is just an arbitrary number selected to protect the manufacturer's hind quarters. Screw the lawyers.
 
EdFred said:
Oh look an article by a trial lawyer...can't imagine any bias there.
Click to expand...

In fact the entire website is devoted to self-promoting Danko, the aviation lawyer.

Is there an aviation version of ambulance chaser?
 
timwinters said:
A cirrus engine actually made it to TBO much less past? Amazing.

The article is overblowing (IMO) the NTSB's mention of "past TBO."

...
Click to expand...


Agreed, but given the recent comments on other issues by the NTSB it would not surprise me a bit if it mirrored Danko's opinions.
 
This is not a simple case of running past TBO. I wonder if this piece of information from the NTSB report might make a bit of difference:

Piston Pin Bushings

According to the owner of a local engine overhaul facility, about 6 weeks prior to the accident, the mechanic who maintained the airplane found a piece of connecting rod bushing (piston pin bushing) in the engine oil sump. When the piece was shown to personnel at the engine overhaul facility, the airplane owner and the mechanic were advised that there was a service bulletin concerning connecting rod bearings and that the engine case should be split for repair. Then when the owner of the engine overhaul shop was advised of the total time of operation that the engine had accrued, he recommended that the owner either get a major overhaul or purchase a new engine. He was then advised by the mechanic that the airplane was expected to be sold as is. Neither the mechanic, nor owner returned to the overhaul shop prior to the accident.
 
I for one would not want to be in front of jury of non-pilots if I had been knowingly operating an aircraft with beyond TBO components and had been in some sort of an accident that despite my best efforts caused harm to those on the ground. The spin could easily go against you. That being said I also understand the logic of the "Keep flying it till it starts making metal" crowd too. I just don't think they'd have a leg to stand on though if they were ever called on the carpet.
 
The article didn't mention TBO calendar time.
 
Brad Z said:
This is not a simple case of running past TBO. I wonder if this piece of information from the NTSB report might make a bit of difference:

Piston Pin Bushings

According to the owner of a local engine overhaul facility, about 6 weeks prior to the accident, the mechanic who maintained the airplane found a piece of connecting rod bushing (piston pin bushing) in the engine oil sump. When the piece was shown to personnel at the engine overhaul facility, the airplane owner and the mechanic were advised that there was a service bulletin concerning connecting rod bearings and that the engine case should be split for repair. Then when the owner of the engine overhaul shop was advised of the total time of operation that the engine had accrued, he recommended that the owner either get a major overhaul or purchase a new engine. He was then advised by the mechanic that the airplane was expected to be sold as is. Neither the mechanic, nor owner returned to the overhaul shop prior to the accident.
Click to expand...


Poorly written paragraph. Its hard to tell what part they are talking about.
 
RichNY said:
The article didn't mention TBO calendar time.
Click to expand...


Seems very very few ever notice that. There was a Special Airworthiness Bulletin (I think) a while back concerning Lycoming studs or through bolts (can't remember which) that were breaking due to corrosion. My guess is that they were probably coastal aircraft well passed calendar TBO.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I for one would not want to be in front of jury of non-pilots if I had been knowingly operating an aircraft with beyond TBO components and had been in some sort of an accident that despite my best efforts caused harm to those on the ground. The spin could easily go against you. That being said I also understand the logic of the "Keep flying it till it starts making metal" crowd too. I just don't think they'd have a leg to stand on though if they were ever called on the carpet.
Click to expand...

If the narrative quoted by Brad Z is accurate, this case-study is a whole separate issue. They had knowledge of failed components inside the engine case prior to taking it up again. I'm not gonna prophylactically overhaul an engine because of fears of litigation. The TBO is not statutory for recreational operation. That's what insurance is for. A case where my airplane lands on someone's head is going to cause grief whether my engine is post TBO or not. I don't let that possibility deter me; I fundamentally do not believe TBO time is a primary measure of the likelihood of catastrophic engine failure.

Again, this is an issue of having prior knowledge that your engine is coming apart and electing to do nothing about it because you wish to stiff the next buyer with "as is" sales contract. What are the odds the service centers diagnosis never made it to the engine logbook? This is why people in GA get a bad rep. I'm glad it shelled out on the owner and not the future buyer. Karma works like that sometimes.
 
Define TBO.

Is an engine safe to run up to TBO?

What happens at TBO?

Which has a higher probability of failure - an engine at 10 hours past TBO or an engine with 10 hours since new? What about 50 hours? 100? Where did you get the data?

What does TBO really mean? Is it a B-10, B-50, or ???

How is it determined?
 
bnt83 said:
Seems very very few ever notice that. There was a Special Airworthiness Bulletin (I think) a while back concerning Lycoming studs or through bolts (can't remember which) that were breaking due to corrosion. My guess is that they were probably coastal aircraft well passed calendar TBO.
Click to expand...

Interesting. We had two studs break on the Mooney Lyco, we had our A&P replace all studs and through bolts. What is the Lyco calendar time, 12 years?
 
it's not like you're guaranteeing NO problems when you take your TBO'd engine and have it overhauled.
 
rbridges said:
it's not like you're guaranteeing NO problems when you take your TBO'd engine and have it overhauled.
Click to expand...


Just look at the ADs on new parts :hairraise:


Sometimes I think the general public expect a level of quality and reliability that the manufacturers have yet to provide.


Look at the GM Ignition switch recall, .00000X% caused ?13? fatalities and provoke a recall of what? 2.6 million switches??
 
Last edited:
Norman said:
I'm with Ed. I've seen many engines exceed TBO by a good margin if they're properly maintained. TBO is just an arbitrary number selected to protect the manufacturer's hind quarters. Screw the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Actually TBO is not arbitrary and it is a number that is determined during initial certification. It can be extended, and that has been done in more than one instance by OEMs. For example, the diesels out there have TBO/TBRs that are very low (in the 1200 hour range), but say they expect to extend those to 2000 hours. Rewind the clock 50 years and that's the process our engines went through. Could TBOs be extended today? Absolutely, and we've shown this. However, there's not a lot of incentive for the OEMs to do so. Us Part 91 folks can run past TBO just fine already, the 135 operators can get exemptions if they are willing to make the effort. Basically there's not all that much demand besides people saying it's an "arbitrary number."
 
TBO, the bane to all plane owners.

My engine is 58 years old. I mean, that the parts for most of it were made about 58 years ago. The jugs prolly slightly newer, and some of the bits recently.

It's certainly over 12 years since OH, but only 455 hours. I trust the cases, crankshaft, rods, cam, and drive gears with my life, just like everyone else.

I worry about the exhaust valve and seat, just like everyone else. Fortunately, these components can and should be replaced before TBO. On the big Conti, I'm guessing my exhaust and piston stuff will go about 800 hours, maybe a bit less or more. I'm planning on replacing jugs etc as needed and going well beyond TBO on the bottom end.

I've seen plenty of Conti big bore engines go well over 3000 on the bottom and not show any wear at all. Hope I get that far with mine.
 
timwinters said:
... You know, POH recommends running at 125% power and all that...
Click to expand...

Umm, how do you run an engine at "125% power" ? Wouldn't that be like getting 125 correct answers on a 100 question test? :confused:
 
Silvaire said:
Umm, how do you run an engine at "125% power" ? Wouldn't that be like getting 125 correct answers on a 100 question test? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well the 'kota is currently rated to run at 110% of original installed power for 5 minutes and then all ya gotta do is overboost a bit...and then who really knows how much power is being pulled out of the engine with the STC'd intercooler and all...anyway I try real hard to keep it below 110%...
 
hindsight2020 said:
What are the odds the service centers diagnosis never made it to the engine logbook? This is why people in GA get a bad rep. I'm glad it shelled out on the owner and not the future buyer. Karma works like that sometimes.
Click to expand...

I wondered whether the airplane, upon discovery of the metal parts in the oil sump, would have been declared unairworthy given the obvious and the AD. from the limited info here it sounds like the mechanic might have known about a potentially/likely issue and not acted properly?
 
bnt83 said:
Poorly written paragraph. Its hard to tell what part they are talking about.
Click to expand...

The point being that the case doesn't seem to be about negligence from simply going beyond TBO, but more importantly, there were indications that the engine did need to be opened up and the operator ignored that.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The point being that the case doesn't seem to be about negligence from simply going beyond TBO, but more importantly, there were indications that the engine did need to be opened up and the operator ignored that.
Click to expand...

Yep, I was thinking that while reading these comments and discussion. Talk about TBO appears to be missing the rather obvious, that pieces of reciprocating parts had been found in the engine sump.

This is almost always a good indication the whirly thing on the end of the engine might stop without warning.
 
I think everybody so far is missing the point of the attached article. That being how a court of law would view flying past TBO in the case where somebody was injured, or killed. If you run your engine past TBO and it does fail and it does cause someone to die, I think in front of a jury saying, "The FAA says it's legal and Mike Busch says..." is not going to save you.

That's all the article is saying, well that and alerting other lawyers for a potential angle to get paid. Now that this is out there, in any crash involving engine failure, you can bet there will be lawyers asking, "How many hours were on that engine anyhow?"
 
Dav8or said:
I think everybody so far is missing the point of the attached article. That being how a court of law would view flying past TBO in the case where somebody was injured, or killed. If you run your engine past TBO and it does fail and it does cause someone to die, I think in front of a jury saying, "The FAA says it's legal and Mike Busch says..." is not going to save you.

That's all the article is saying, well that and alerting other lawyers for a potential angle to get paid. Now that this is out there, in any crash involving engine failure, you can bet there will be lawyers asking, "How many years/hours were on that engine anyhow?"
Click to expand...

Again, missing the whole picture. I'd like to see a survey yes or no, has your engine been overhauled in the last 12 years. I have a % in mind of the results.
 
bnt83 said:
Again, missing the whole picture. I'd like to see a survey yes or no, has your engine been overhauled in the last 12 years. I have a % in mind of the results.
Click to expand...

Well, go post a poll and find out if you're right. Mine has been overhauled in the last 12 years, but that doesn't make me safe from the lawyers. According to Lycoming, my engine should have been discarded by now. My airplane has it's original engine in it, so it's coming up on 48 years old.
 
I read the NTSB report and compared to the characterization in the article....they don't jive. So I was ready to call bullocks on the article. As I read through the posts, I began to realize that Dav8or was right. When in front of a jury, I believe that the bias will be against the owner who exceeded TBO + 1hr or (1 day). All we need is a precedent setting case and Part91 operations (as we know them today) has another railroad sized stake in the coffin.
 
Dav8or said:
I think everybody so far is missing the point of the attached article. That being how a court of law would view flying past TBO in the case where somebody was injured, or killed. If you run your engine past TBO and it does fail and it does cause someone to die, I think in front of a jury saying, "The FAA says it's legal and Mike Busch says..." is not going to save you.

That's all the article is saying, well that and alerting other lawyers for a potential angle to get paid. Now that this is out there, in any crash involving engine failure, you can bet there will be lawyers asking, "How many hours were on that engine anyhow?"
Click to expand...

If you have a crash involving an engine failure, there will be no shortage of questions from from lawyers. This will be regardless of whether or not you follow the TBO recommendation. What about the 135 operators that have their engines run on condition rather than on TBO?
 
Brad Z said:
According to the owner of a local engine overhaul facility, about 6 weeks prior to the accident, the mechanic who maintained the airplane found a piece of connecting rod bushing (piston pin bushing) in the engine oil sump. When the piece was shown to personnel at the engine overhaul facility, the airplane owner and the mechanic were advised that there was a service bulletin concerning connecting rod bearings and that the engine case should be split for repair. Then when the owner of the engine overhaul shop was advised of the total time of operation that the engine had accrued, he recommended that the owner either get a major overhaul or purchase a new engine. He was then advised by the mechanic that the airplane was expected to be sold as is. Neither the mechanic, nor owner returned to the overhaul shop prior to the accident.[/I]
Click to expand...
This to me is the smoking gun. Running past TBO as long as your engine still passes all required tests during annual breaks no laws or requirements. The problem here is that the mechanic notified the owner that the engine had a problem and he ignored that and flew the airplane anyway. I can see a jury burning him for that since it would be easy to prove that he was being negligent. Running past TBO by itself is not negligent but running past TBO with a known problem certainly is. In a case where a person has run past TBO and the engine is running fine with no issues encountered or observed from testing is not negligent.

As I write this my engine is going through a major overhaul. I hope to be back flying in a week or two. My engine was 300 hours past TBO. During my previous annuals, my compressions were all in the 70's and no other issues were found with my engine. Knowing that my engine was running good and that I was taking the best care of it that i could, I was not concerned flying it past TBO. As a matter of fact, I am more concerned about the upcoming first 100 hours after overhaul. There have been too many reports of infant mortality that cause me more concern than running past the TBO. I had already been talking with my mechanic about doing an overhaul either this next winter or during next years annual, but when we did the compression checks they just barely passed the Lycoming recommendation of 60/80 in one cylinder and another was in the low 60's too. We pulled the two weak cylinders off and did an internal inspection. My mechanic convinced me that is was time. I ordered four new Lycoming cylinders from Air Power in Arlington Texas and the rest of the engine will be refurbished to new condition to take me to 0 SMOH.

This is my first major overhaul. My engine had 2306 total on it. Had I continued to fly my engine with it just barely meeting the Lycoming recommendations and I had an engine failure, I think it would have been easier for a jury to claim negligence. Even though it is really expensive doing the overhaul, at least I will know that I am doing the best I can to maintain my plane in air worthy conditon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top